State v. Heredia’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “constituted hearsay within hearsay and was corroborated only by other hearsay statements rather than established facts”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Conn. App. 215 - State v. Rivera · State v. Bennett

2. “[o]ur Supreme Court has held that corpus delicti does not implicate a fundamental constitutional right sufficient to satisfy the standard set forth in Golding . In State v. Uretek, Inc., [supra, 207 Conn. at 713 , 543 A.2d 709 ], our Supreme Court summarily rejected a claim that the lack of extrinsic corroboration of an admission that was vital to proving an element of the offense implicated a fundamental constitutional right and, therefore, concluded that such a claim did not qualify for review.... State v. Oliveras, [supra, 210 Conn. at 756 , 557 A.2d 534 ].... Although our Supreme Court in Oliveras retreated from the holding in Uretek, Inc., by declining to decide whether [an unpreserved] claim that there was no proof of the corpus delicti ... would warrant review ... as implicating a constitutional right; [id., at 757, 557 A.2d 534 ]; and this court in State v. McArthur, [ 96 Conn.App. 155 , 166, 899 A.2d 691 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 908 , 907 A.2d 93 (2006) ], assume[d] ... that the defendant's [unpreserved corpus delicti] claim [was] constitutional in nature in order to reach its merits, Uretek, Inc., has not been expressly overruled.... Accordingly, we conclude that the defendant has failed to show that his claim is of constitutional magnitude as required by the second Golding prong.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 Conn. App. 142 - State v. Leniart

3. “The legal principles guiding the exercise of the trial court's discretion regarding the admission of hearsay evidence under the residual exception are well established. An [out-of-court] statement is hearsay when it is offered to establish the truth of the matters contained therein.... As a general rule, hearsay evidence is not admissible unless it falls under one of several well established exceptions.... The purpose behind the hearsay rule is to effectuate the policy of requiring that testimony be given in open court, under oath, and subject to cross-examination.... The residual, or catch-all, exception to the hearsay rule allows a trial court to admit hearsay evidence not admissible under any of the established exceptions if: (1) there is a reasonable necessity for the admission of the statement, and (2) the statement is supported by the equivalent guarantees of reliability and trustworthiness essential to other evidence admitted under the traditional hearsay exceptions.... We have recognized that [t]he residual hearsay exceptions [should be] applied in the rarest of cases ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Conn. App. 215 - State v. Rivera